Wednesday, January 06, 2016

Nullify 'Gay Marriage:' S. Carolina; Other States

Conservative state legislatures across America will consider various measures in 2016 to counteract effects of the 2015 Supreme Court decision that redefined marriage, including a bill in South Carolina aimed at nullifying the same-sex "marriage" ruling.

"I think there's a lot of states that are looking at this and seeing what can be done to make sure that religious freedoms are respected."-- Rep. Mike Cierpiot, Missouri House Majority Leader (30th District)

There are 22 states with laws barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and 21 with laws limiting the government's ability to burden the free exercise of religion. But just four states — Connecticut, Rhode Island, Illinois and New Mexico — have both.

The ACLU will be seeking to expand the list of places barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It's targeting at least a half dozen states — Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania — that have Republican-led legislatures and also may be pivotal in presidential elections.

The Family Research Council, which opposed the Houston ordinance, is supporting state measures that would grant broad protections "from government discrimination" against people "who have a sincere belief — religious or not — in natural marriage," said Quena Gonzalez, the group's director of state and local affairs.

[South Carolina state] Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Woodruff, and Rep. Mike Burns, R-Taylors, pre-filed a bill in the House to define marriage as between one man and one woman. He also aims for his bill to invalidate same-sex marriages in South Carolina. The bill is titled as the South Carolina Natural Marriage Defense Act.

"I represent the people, and the people have shown several times that they are opposed to this, and are in favor of traditional marriage," Chumley said.

The bill also proposes the South Carolina Attorney General to represent state officials in lawsuits relating to same sex-marriages.

The Supreme Court ruling in June legalizing same-sex marriage came down to a 5 to 4 vote, Chumley said. He said the split vote was indicative of the views of all Americans.

"Apparently, those four people believe like we do," he said. "I do believe that something that's a close vote like that sends a message, it's not cut and dry."

. . . [The House Bill H4513] legislation declares “It is the policy of the State of South Carolina to defend natural marriage as recognized by the people of this State in the Constitution and laws of the State of South Carolina.”

It further asserts, “Natural marriage between one man and one woman as recognized by the people of this State remains the law in South Carolina, regardless of any court decision to the contrary. A court decision purporting to strike down natural marriage, including Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), is unauthoritative, void, and of no effect.”

H4513 would also prohibit state agencies from enforcing any court order that has the effect of violating South Carolina’s laws protecting natural marriage, and would prohibit the state from applying any levy upon the property or arresting “any government official or individual who does not comply with any unlawful court order regarding natural marriage within South Carolina.”

Practically speaking, H4513 would require the state of South Carolina to defend a state or local official who found him or herself in a situation similar to Rowan County clerk Kim Davis in Kentucky when a federal judge required her to issue marriage licenses to gay couples and threw her in jail when she refused to comply. It would prohibit the use of state facilities, and the assistance of state and local law enforcement in enforcing any federal rulings. These actions would undoubtedly make it difficult for the feds to enforce their will.

States, as creators of the federal government, are the arbiters of the limits of the latter’s power, and forcing them to accept the definition of "marriage" to include same-sex unions certainly falls outside those limits.

One way that states can continue simultaneously supporting the Constitution and their own sovereignty is by nullifying the federal court’s extra-constitutional edict. The South Carolina bill would take that state along this constitutionally sound course.

Nullification recognizes that states retain the power to invalidate any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

. . . Fortunately, Bill Chumley, Mike Burns, and several other state legislators across the country are stepping into the breach to restore the principles of federalism and limited government established by our Founding Fathers.